Personality Cafe banner

1 - 20 of 123 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
305 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
While discussing another topic, a comment was made that “science has proven that evolution is correct.”
Understandably, I have been under the impression that neither evolutionists nor the other guys have been able to produce any scientific proof to tip the scales one way or the other. Both sides seem to be able to present plenty of 'evidence' and make educated guesses, but has anybody got any irrefutable empirical proof?

This thread exists for the purposes of presenting and discussing such proofs, as there may be, from a scientific point of view.
If you choose to present a proof, please include any relevant foundational information, a description of the proof, and at least one observable example. Only include evidence that directly correlates with the proof or it's foundation.
Please do not quote 'evidence' that only suggests or guesses at a hoped for out-come.
In discussion of a particular proof, please refrain from being critical of the poster while showing well reasoned science based arguments for the position you take.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,026 Posts
Ask the INTPs for perfect proof. Te is all about shitloads of evidence and the best current theory. IE, what supports evolution - very well, I might add.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,162 Posts
Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I realize this is craftily hidden, but I managed to uncover it!

Seriously, the scientific evidence for evolution is pretty overwhelming. Now, one may argue that this is all a clever hoax played by the Devil to make good Christians stray, but such a theory is not scientific, as it falls short of the Poppertian criteria for a scientific theory.

Edited to add: the tricky bit is the scientific part. Science puts certain "rules" on theories. It is a particular way of looking at the truth - a very important one, some would argue, just a handy one, would others argue. As such, it cannot be disproven that a benevolent entity actually pulls the strings of Heaven, but this is not a scientific theory and as such isn't' scrutinized in science.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
212 Posts
but such a theory is not scientific, as it falls short of the Poppertian criteria for a scientific theory.
Don't underestimate the anti-Enlightenment. Creationism and Intelligent Design might be ridiculed in science, but Critical Realism and Postmodernity are pulling the rug beneath science. And they have university institutions in the US as well as in Europe.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,162 Posts
And they have university institutions in the US as well as in Europe.
Well, luckily,it isn't taught in science class in Europe. AFAIK, it's a pretty American thing. Now, mind you, I'm totally open to the suggestion that God created the Earth and Heavens. It's just not scientific. Then again, that little bit of science philosophy is lost on 99% of the crowd, I do get that part.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
305 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I realize this is craftily hidden, but I managed to uncover it!

Seriously, the scientific evidence for evolution is pretty overwhelming. Now, one may argue that this is all a clever hoax played by the Devil to make good Christians stray, but such a theory is not scientific, as it falls short of the Poppertian criteria for a scientific theory.
Seriously, I'm NOT looking for heaps of overwhelming 'evidence' that only suggests or guesses at a hoped for out-come! The Wikipedia article indicated provides plenty of observable instances of natural processes, but assumes these processes are due to the hoped for out-come, evolution. The creationists do the same thing. A foundation has not been established and the 'evidence' could be used to backup any arguement.

has anybody got any irrefutable empirical proof?

This thread exists for the purposes of presenting and discussing such proofs, as there may be, from a scientific point of view.
If you choose to present a proof, please include any relevant foundational information, a description of the proof, and at least one observable example. Only include evidence that directly correlates with the proof or it's foundation.
Please do not quote 'evidence' that only suggests or guesses at a hoped for out-come.
In discussion of a particular proof, please refrain from being critical of the poster while showing well reasoned science based arguments for the position you take.
Just one irrefutable proof, is that too much to ask for?
I don't care which side you take, if you can't supply the requested information, then you haven't got a case.
Interestingly, it may be suggested we use Karl Popper's criteria for scientific proof. Karl Popper who said, "Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program." He wasn't interested in it as a scientific theory, but rather for the useful information gathering that it's scientists do. He also noted that theism, presented as explaining adaptation, "was worse than an open admission of failure, for it created the impression that an ultimate explanation had been reached." Again, not refuting any of the ideas of theism, but simply stating that it is not a scientific theory for explaining adaptation. The biggest issue though, with using Popper's method for establishing scientific theory to define proof, is that he states that theory is refutable and is not proof!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,162 Posts
Seriously, I'm NOT looking for heaps of overwhelming 'evidence' that only suggests or guesses at a hoped for out-come! The Wikipedia article indicated provides plenty of observable instances of natural processes, but assumes these processes are due to the hoped for out-come, evolution. The creationists do the same thing. A foundation has not been established and the 'evidence' could be used to backup any arguement.
You are missing the point. A scientific theory should obey certain criteria, such as falsifiability and Occam's Razor. Within that framework, evolution is a closed case. Creationism cannot replace it, as it fails both these tests.

Just one irrefutable proof, is that too much to ask for?
Obviously. In science, all proof is, and must be, somehow refutable.

Maybe you should first read up on the scientific method before you try to get your hands dirty with this can of worms. Specifically, look into Popper. Once you do, you'll see why this whole debate is quite literally as meaningful as a discussion about the weight of the color red.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
305 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Maybe you should first read up on the scientific method before you try to get your hands dirty with this can of worms. Specifically, look into Popper. Once you do, you'll see why this whole debate is quite literally as meaningful as a discussion about the weight of the color red.
Woohoo! That IS the point!

The fact is, neither party can take the high ground and say they have proof, on a scientific basis.
The fact is, the original assertion, "science has proven that evolution is correct" is wrong, because nothing has been proven.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,162 Posts
Woohoo! That IS the point!

The fact is, neither party can take the high ground and say they have proof, on a scientific basis.
The fact is, the original assertion, "science has proven that evolution is correct" is wrong, because nothing has been proven.
Reading isn't your strong suit, is it? Scientifically based, evolution is right. It has been proven to the standards of science, so to speak, as it is our best theory.

I can already tell this is not going to work though. You only hear what you want to hear and have no idea what the real question that you should be asking is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
726 Posts
Obviously. In science, all proof is, and must be, somehow refutable.
Not only must the proof be refutable, but once something has actually been ascertained to be irrefutable then in science it is made into a law. There are SO few laws in science, and this is because so few things in our existence can be irrefutable, but that is not the fault of the things being studied, it is the fault of the minds trying to perceive them.

Science (a very broad and philosophical definition) is really the attempt to perceive, analyze, cogitate, codify and elucidate for all other sentient beings the world we inhabit. We are the receivers of two wondrous gifts simultaneously: a place to live (read the book "Rare Earth" to find out how random and rare the odds of a planet like Earth existing in just such a solar system in just such a galaxy as ours really are) and the ability to take it apart and understand it!

Religion is the province of faith, and faith has no place in the hard sciences. I do not trust the laws of science, or have faith in them BECAUSE THEY ARE HARDENED FACTS!!! The reason there are not more "facts" in the world is because we cannot conceive of them. Those facts outwit us or evade us because we have to bend OUR thinking to reach for them. Read up on non-Euclidian geometry or the astrophysics involved in black holes to try to stretch that brain of yours to the scope and radical nature of our universe! It's amazing! But I can't have faith in something to study it! I have to be willing to test my ideas and if I am open to testing, then I have to set my biases aside to test for it.

I got into a fabulous debate recently with another INTJ in my RL about the fact that music history can't really be called a hard and fast science because of the fact that we cannot fully extricate personal bias from the way we study things in the social sciences. In fact, in order to study the history of humanity you have to be willing to deal with bias all the time and be open to embracing it. So he and I went round and round the issue of whether or not bias in science is acceptable... I'm still not convinced it is. I believe there are specific disciplines where personal bias is not only unacceptable it's damn injurious to the study.

Please, please, please, do some hard core reading and read first this site and its links

Case Studies: Natural Selection and Darwin's Finches

Then read this one:

Hominid Species

Then ask yourself a question I think not enough people are asking themselves, and understand that evolution and a thorough understanding of its processes as extrapolated from various species will be the only course to answering this question.

Why was Homo sapiens sapiens the only species to survive out of the ENTIRE genus Homo when multiple species in every other genus in the super-family Hominidae survived?

I think this is an idea to concern ourselves with, especially as climate change on this Earth of ours accelerates, but that's my paranoia setting in.

All the best to you in your quest for knowledge. :cool: That is unless the original assertion really was correct and you're just strictly Trolling...
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,210 Posts
Not only must the proof be refutable, but once something has actually been ascertained to be irrefutable then in science it is made into a law.
Well no, that is not actually correct.
What distinguishes a law from a theory is that the former merely summarizes a range of observations, while the latter seeks to explain them.
Scientific laws actually can be falsified the same way that theories can, however uncommon it may be (considering the profusion of data that they represent.)

I agreed with most everything else you wrote. :wink:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,300 Posts
Yep, there is no irrefutable proof. Just a bunch of assumptions piled on top of one another by biased men in lab coats (who can't agree with each other and keep changing their story) that anybody who really listens to (without the same desperate need to believe it as well) will see clearly it's bullshit.:laughing:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,210 Posts
Yep, there is no irrefutable proof. Just a bunch of assumptions piled on top of one another by biased men in lab coats (who can't agree with each other and keep changing their story) that anybody who really listens to (without the same desperate need to believe it as well) will see clearly it's bullshit.:laughing:
Trolling again, I see.

Oh, and your fallacies - in order:
Argument from ignorance
Poisoning the well
Appeal to motive
Appeal to ridicule

Personally, I think that open-mindedness and a respect for evidence are good things; ergo, when scientists revise "the story" because of new evidence, I applaud them; I don't ridicule them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
305 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
While discussing another topic, a comment was made that “science has proven that evolution is correct.”
Understandably, I have been under the impression that neither evolutionists nor the other guys have been able to produce any scientific proof to tip the scales one way or the other. Both sides seem to be able to present plenty of 'evidence' and make educated guesses, but has anybody got any irrefutable empirical proof?

This thread exists for the purposes of presenting and discussing such proofs, as there may be, from a scientific point of view.
If you choose to present a proof, please include any relevant foundational information, a description of the proof, and at least one observable example. Only include evidence that directly correlates with the proof or it's foundation.
Please do not quote 'evidence' that only suggests or guesses at a hoped for out-come.
In discussion of a particular proof, please refrain from being critical of the poster while showing well reasoned science based arguments for the position you take.
Reading isn't your strong suit, is it? Scientifically based, evolution is right. It has been proven to the standards of science, so to speak, as it is our best theory.

I can already tell this is not going to work though. You only hear what you want to hear and have no idea what the real question that you should be asking is.
Please read and understand the Original Post before posting again.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,162 Posts
This thread exists for the purposes of presenting and discussing such proofs, as there may be, from a scientific point of view.
Yes, I think that's pretty much resolved, isn't it?
Yep, there is no irrefutable proof. Just a bunch of assumptions piled on top of one another by biased men in lab coats (who can't agree with each other and keep changing their story) that anybody who really listens to (without the same desperate need to believe it as well) will see clearly it's bullshit.
It's good to know you are not, and never will be, a scientist.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,300 Posts
Trolling again, I see.

Oh, and your fallacies - in order:
Argument from ignorance
Poisoning the well
Appeal to motive
Appeal to ridicule

Personally, I think that open-mindedness and a respect for evidence are good things; ergo, when scientists revise "the story" because of new evidence, I applaud them; I don't ridicule them.
Appeal to ignorance: er, don't think so since I know more about evolution than most self-proclaimed evolutionists. See, I actually question the theory and thought about it before I digested it.



Appeal to motive: Yes, I see motive. I think there is motive as there is with most things in this world, being bought and sold.

Appeal to ridicule: "desperate need to believe" was not a ridicule but an observation.

p.s. nice to see you back.
 
1 - 20 of 123 Posts
Top